Constitutional Morality Debate: A New Battle for Judicial Review

The Centre challenges the Supreme Court's use of constitutional morality for judicial review, particularly regarding religious practices. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claims it's vague and subjective. The Supreme Court is reconsidering its past decisions on same-sex relationships, adultery, and religious freedom under constitutional morality.

In a pivotal discussion, the Centre has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the application of the 'constitutional morality' doctrine in judicial reviews, particularly those involving religious practices.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that constitutional morality is a subjective and vague doctrine, insufficient for testing the correctness of religious beliefs.

The debate arises from past court decisions, including those on same-sex relationships and the Sabarimala temple entry issue, which relied on this doctrine. The Supreme Court panel is assessing these precedents and examining the scope of religious freedom under Indian law.

(With inputs from agencies.)